Xref: utzoo comp.ai:2919 talk.philosophy.misc:1743
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!ece-csc!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw
From: throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence and Intelligence
Message-ID: <2415@xyzzy.UUCP>
Date: 16 Dec 88 16:23:55 GMT
References: <562@metapsy.UUCP> <2732@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <563@metapsy.UUCP> <1841@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> <1736@sjuvax.UUCP>
Organization: Data General, RTP NC.
Lines: 19

> tmoody@sjuvax.UUCP (T. Moody)
> If you don't understand "machine"
> in a way that lets you distinguish between, say, trees and clocks, then
> you are taking this word on a long holiday.

This is a little unclear to me.  Do you mean that not to place a boundary
on the definition of "machine" between trees and clocks is wrong-headed, or
do you mean that the definition of machine must be segmented in such a way
that a boundary (of what fuzziness?) must exist between trees and clocks?

But question: *Is* there any difference in the way trees and clocks
operate (except for the obvious difference in complexity)?

And further: what about between trees and humans?

--
The real problem is not whether machines think, but whether men do.
                                        --- B.F. Skinner
-- 
Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw